by Gavin Evans
Dr Gavin Evans is a freelance journalist and author of eight non-fiction books including books of popular science and sporting biographies. He has a PhD in political science and has lectured in media law, media theory and journalism at the Culture and Media department at Birkbeck College, Cardiff University and at the London School of Journalism.
Private Family Court hearings involve disputes between mothers and fathers over parental responsibility and over how much time each gets to spend with their son or daughter following divorce or separation. Until recently, these disputes were kept out of the public eye, partly because it was felt that any publicity could lead to the identification of vulnerable children.
But a government-endorsed pilot project has given accredited journalists a glimpse behind the arras, allowing us to report on Family Law hearings under strict conditions that include the issuing of Transparency Orders, preventing us from writing anything that could lead to the parties being identified.
So it was that in August last year, I took my seat in London’s Central Family Court to hear a case set for three days but that would end up lasting six months and five full court days.
This involved tearful expressions of anguish and accusations of rage, unreasonableness and controlling and coercive behaviour, revealing diametrically different perspectives. A screen was used to prevent the parties from seeing each other and they were instructed to leave the court separately, due to allegations of serious domestic abuse.
The bald facts were these: the applicant was the father, whom I’ll call ‘Theo’, an immigrant from a European country who worked in business. He was seeking more contact with his eight-year-old son, “Fred”. The mother, “Hannah”, a City-based British professional, opposed this, wanting reduced contact for the father. Judgment was given in February 2026.
The court-appointed barrister representing Fred’s interests described the parent’s relationship as “extremely acrimonious”. Their relationship broke down soon after Theo’s three children from his previous marriage moved into their three-bedroom flat during the Covid pandemic. Tensions involving the four children seemed to create a pressure-cooker situation, exacerbating the already-brewing conflict between the parents. The father moved out of the family home in 2022, seven years after they married.
Theo, who represented himself in court, acknowledged he once slapped his then-13-year-old daughter in the face, prompting a police intervention, and that he would “physically chastise” his son from his previous marriage on a weekly basis, which Hannah opposed. “I begged [Theo] to stop hitting him,” she said. Theo said he regretted this and had stopped hitting the boy in 2022.
He accused Hannah of being “constantly angry”, particularly “before her period” and of making “malicious” accusations against him. He said that she “destroyed my mental health” and that this had prompted a “burnout”, which meant he lost his job.
Theo acknowledged he’d become depressed as a result and had suicidal thoughts and had once put a rope around his neck but said that his state of mind improved through sport and exercise and that following a six-month return to Europe, he was “back to normal”. He apologised to the court for calling Hannah “psychotic and insane”.
Asked whether he was on the autistic spectrum, which had been suggested by the court psychologist who had interviewed him for more than nine hours, he said he might be but had never been tested for this although he attended a bi-weekly conference call with “autistic dads”.
The court-appointed child guardian said Theo “displayed coercive and controlling behaviour – both towards the respondent and others”. The court heard he had made “a plethora of complaints” against various professionals dealing with the case and against Hannah. These involved legal action, complaints to the police and to professional associations. He was subject to a non-molestation order against the mother.
Several times Theo cried in court while talking about his relationship with Fred, which he described as healthy. He said he did not have a “violent temper” and he could not recall getting angry with Fred. Addressing the judge, he said, “I am begging you to trust me” and told him, “I will not disappoint you.”
Theo requested an equal parenting order but with him getting two-thirds of holidays for the first year, “to make up for lost time” during their separation, and then 50-50 thereafter.
Hannah, who was represented by a barrister, also cried several times while giving evidence. She said she’d been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the conflict between them. “I was living in the 7th circle of hell with him,” she said, adding that she was “still living in hell.”
She said Theo had subjected her to several years of physical and mental abuse including “strangling” her and “pushing me out of bed several times”, which he denied. She added: “I didn’t feel safe at all. I was afraid of him. I am still very scared of him and my whole life has been affected by this.”
Hannah acknowledged: “Sometimes I can be short and abrupt with people and get upset quickly”. She added that she “sometimes responded in ways not appropriate” but said she didn’t have anger management issues. “I’m hyper aware of the way I behave around my son. I have not allowed him to experience any anger on my part.”
The local authority-appointed psychologist who assessed both parties said that despite Hannah’s PTSD, and a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), she was “able to parent [Fred] effectively”.
Hannah said Theo didn’t recognise Fred’s needs – a view reiterated by the Children’s Guardian who said Fred had told her that his father didn’t listen to him and said there was a question as to whether he could meet his son’s emotional needs.
She gave examples of what she saw as his negligence when looking after the boy including sleeping on a mattress on the floor and having to “scoot” three miles to school each day and three miles back. She added that her son “doesn’t have the freedom to express himself emotionally with his father”.
She asked the court to reduce Theo’s contact with their son.
The judge made a finding of Controlling and Coercive Behaviour (CCB) against the father, which he said was reflected in his gaslighting of the mother and the litany of litigation and complaints.
His judgment denied the father’s request for equal time between the parents. Instead, it confirmed that Fred would live with his mother.
The judgment gave the father contact with his son on Friday after school and Saturdays until 5pm on alternate weeks, and also two weeks with Fred during summer holidays – and the father would also be allowed to take his son abroad during this time provided he gave the mother 14 days’ notice. Reciprocal arrangements were made for birthdays and religious holidays.
The non-molestation order against the father was extended until 2030. Both parents were forbidden from using derogatory language about each other to Fred.
When the case finally ended, after four years of proceedings with the final six months absorbed in court hearings, I was left with a strong appreciation for the work of the Family Court.
When domestic abuse and controlling and coercive behaviour mean that mediation is not an option, there is often no alternative but to take matters to court.
In this case, after hearing evidence from both litigants and from a psychologist, social worker and the Children’s Guardian, the Family Court reached a judgment that might secure a less fraught existence for an eight-year-old child, and perhaps also for both parents.
Additional note post-publication:
Published 16 March 2026.